Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Gunner-Chan]

I'm still personally surprised sex is such a big deal to most people. Personally I'd put it on the same level as going out to enjoy time with a friend, since really that's about what it is.

[Helgoland]

Yeah. It is slavery. My dog is enslaved and does stuff for my amusement. I literally am a person who gets amusements from my slaves. Take that quote bay12.

That's why I worded it as "sex is too far." Ultimately most of what I do for my dog is for his own good. And none of it has the weight in modern society that sex does. I could honestly see people having sex with animals without moral issues in a society where sex is on the level of interact as a handshake. But since that's not the case sex is a far step above everything I make my dog do.

Well... The dog isn't exactly part of society, is he? To the dog, the importance of sex in society is irrelevant, so that argument must either aim at society as a whole ('moral decay') or you as the individual dog-lover (so that it becomes a personal choice).

Ninjaedit: greatorder, if your dog expects that kind of thing you're clearly not fit to own a dog, even without factoring in the sexual component. And it needn't be attacking; whining or similar vocalizations (or other non-verbal cues) could serve to indicate non-consent just as well.

[Graknorke]

Grak, you forget about all the animal rights and animal welfare groups. The lines ARE fuzzy, because people are like that. And I'd say that you shouldn't be (purposely) causing physical harm.

I was talking about general attitudes, assuming that fits closely with the law.

Helgo, what if your pet thinks that by attacking you or running away or something, it'll be beaten? For all we know, the reason dogs don't tend to attack is because they think that you'll slice off their foot or something as soon as they have a go at you. What we really need is some sort of translator.

Dogs operate on a social structure that is not something we are particularly used to. It is literally 'might makes right'. If someone is stronger or more aggressive or has the upper hand over you for whatever reason, you do what they want. The threat of violence is the basis of how they interact.

[Xantalos]

I'm still personally surprised sex is such a big deal to most people. Personally I'd put it on the same level as going out to enjoy time with a friend, since really that's about what it is.

Hormones and an inability to express personal desires.
Also cultural expectations.

[Flying Dice]

So how many times do we need to repeat this argument? It's just going to boil down to "sex with animals is unnecessary and non-minimized harm + implied consent can lead to very dark places, so lets' not indulge in it" versus "you can't prove that it hurts them + if it's wrong to take sexual pleasure from animals, why is it not wrong to kill animals for consumption" and then go nowhere because neither side will give ground.

And, for what it's worth, I'd rather have someone kill me and eat me than hold me captive and rape me repeatedly for most/all of my life.


If we really need to break the argument that having a pet is functionally equivalent to having sex with a pet, replace "pet" with "child". Should be pretty clear then, eh?

As always, my stance is that if all parties involved give informed consent I don't care what they do. If we made contact with sentient and *cough* compatible aliens, I'd have no problems with interspecies sex by the same standards.

[Helgoland]

I'm not easily offended, and now I'm curious

And yeah, probably. These things work on a gut level.

[Criptfeind]

Also lets be honest with ourselves. If we let people sleep with animals, soon we will have to tolerate people sleeping with other people of the same gender. And no one wants that.

[Dutchling]

Also lets be honest with ourselves. If we let people sleep with animals, soon we will have to tolerate people sleeping with other people of the same gender. And no one wants that.

Or even worse, masturbation.

[GiglameshDespair]

Also lets be honest with ourselves. If we let people sleep with animals, soon we will have to tolerate people sleeping with other people of the same gender. And no one wants that.

Or even worse, masturbation.

And then we'll be having sex out of the missionary position for non-recreative purposes! When would the horror end?

[scrdest]

Also lets be honest with ourselves. If we let people sleep with animals, soon we will have to tolerate people sleeping with other people of the same gender. And no one wants that.

Or even worse, masturbation.

Or ankles.

[Graknorke]

EDIT: Oh come on I was ready for the vitriol to start flying. Fine, I'll spoiler this post and I guess now the discussion dies.
I was ready to segue it into xenophilia too.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

If we really need to break the argument that having a pet is functionally equivalent to having sex with a pet, replace "pet" with "child". Should be pretty clear then, eh?

Please, do tell me about where in modern society children are literally property. I would love to hear about it because that isn't supposed to be a thing that exists.

How about we replace "pet" with "slave" (because it's a far better analogy. Anybody who treats their children like their pets should really not be allowed to) and then have it take place in a society where slavery is socially and legally acceptable. Oh wait yeah that's exactly how it would be.

So, in regards to dogs, they probably DO think they'll be physically punished in some form if they lash out?

Huh.

Yup, that is how they work. On an intrinsic level of social interaction. There is really no way around it, if they were ever to be legally lifted above the level of amusing/useful slave plaything/tool then there would have to be all sorts of considerations as to how they would be treated in a social context. Not time wasted, just a lot of time used in general.

[Flying Dice]

Also lets be honest with ourselves. If we let people sleep with animals, soon we will have to tolerate people sleeping with other people of the same gender. And no one wants that.

Or even worse, masturbation.

That's only the tip of the iceberg. If we let people have sex, they might actually start loving each other, and we all know that the greatest threat to the free market is the ability to love and value other people. If we don't vote for mandatory castration of all citizens, we'll soon wake up in a Marxist Stalinist communist socialist fascist Islamic Sharia Law hellhole where people care about each other.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

If we really need to break the argument that having a pet is functionally equivalent to having sex with a pet, replace "pet" with "child". Should be pretty clear then, eh?

Please, do tell me about where in modern society children are literally property. I would love to hear about it because that isn't supposed to be a thing that exists.

How about we replace "pet" with "slave" (because it's a far better analogy. Anybody who treats their children like their pets should really not be allowed to) and then have it take place in a society where slavery is socially and legally acceptable. Oh wait yeah that's exactly how it would be.

Functionally speaking young children and pets are treated pretty similarly; both have little or no control over their lives, are monitored and cared for by legal guardians, and are protected from abuse by those guardians with a series of laws detailing what is and is not acceptable treatment, but other than those restrictions the guardians have a great deal of control over how they live. The primary functional difference is that that eventually changes in the case of children. Slavery is a much less apt comparison because, generally speaking, there weren't social or legal bounds in regards to the treatment of slaves. Literally the only closer point of similarity there is the fact of legal ownership.

[kaijyuu]

I remember seeing an old random article where a woman referred to her child as her "private property." It wasn't the point of the article, but rather something incidental, but I felt sick.

[Orange Wizard]

I remember seeing an old random article where a woman referred to her child as her "private property." It wasn't the point of the article, but rather something incidental, but I felt sick.

Ewwwww.

[Flying Dice]

Which is fundamentally inaccurate, morally digusting, and explicitly not what I was saying. Unless I was unclear when I said that parenthood and pet ownership aren't the same thing as slavery, because there are both societal and legal obligations to treat charges decently, and the relationship is supposed one of caretaking and affection rather than abuse and exploitation. But maybe I misunderstood and that wasn't directed at me. :|